So what do you think? Does any undefinable quality of the Canon lens overcome the technical superiority of the Sigma lens?

I have used both and settled with the Sigma. I liked it just a bit more - and value wise, in my personal opinion, it is a clear winner.

But, as you say, it is very subjective, and there certainly is room for disagreement (as there should be in any rational discussion about which of two fine lenses is better!)

Depends on whom one is disagreeing with. I wouldn't want to disagree with a moderator. Bad things could happen. he he

LOL. I learn not to dispute with mods endlessly. I said what I want to say once and I am sure what I said usually doesn't end as the last say in the chain

I neither agree nor disagree, or care really, but I wouldn't buy a Sigma lens under any circumstances. That is my narrow minded biased personal choice, which should be allowed with or without the proper charts and blog links.

Well respected as everyone has his/her priority. Personally I'd pickup Sigma 35/1.4 based on all reviews. Nevertheless I picked two best Canon F2.8 zoom that maybe only 10% better than third party's ones despite 80% more expensive. To me it’s case by case consideration on third party lenses.

Since being here in Canada and having to choose between Sigma or Canon and all things being equal, I would choose the Sigma as they offer warranty to their Pro lenses for 10 years. Nowhere in Canonland any of their lenses have a warranty that long.

Depends on whom one is disagreeing with. I wouldn't want to disagree with a moderator. Bad things could happen. he he

LOL. I learn not to dispute with mods endlessly. I said what I want to say once and I am sure what I said usually doesn't end as the last say in the chain

Yes indeed, butt kissing is the best policy. Just walk away...

I neither agree nor disagree, or care really, but I wouldn't buy a Sigma lens under any circumstances. That is my narrow minded biased personal choice, which should be allowed with or without the proper charts and blog links.

Well respected as everyone has his/her priority. Personally I'd pickup Sigma 35/1.4 based on all reviews. Nevertheless I picked two best Canon F2.8 zoom that maybe only 10% better than third party's ones despite 80% more expensive. To me it’s case by case consideration on third party lenses.

Bad experiences saving money with Sigma lenses left a permanent mark. It was along time ago, and if I were a nice person, I'd give them a second chance.

Anyway, somebody mentioned Sigma now has a better warranty. If they had had that back when I was using Sigma lenses, I might be singing a different tune now. Less heavy metal, and maybe lighter jazz.

Now that real world samples are making their way into buyers hands, more and more reports are coming out about continued QC issues at Sigma with AF reliability. Seems the same thing that pops up so often in the 50 1.4 is happening in the 35 1.4 as well. Makes one wonder if Sigma is pre-screening all the lenses they send out for review to make sure they're all perfect.

And please note, I'm not Sigma bashing, I have the 50 1.4 and have nothing against them. I just don't like that they're able to produce a wonderful lens but won't put the QC protocols into place that will assure that almost every one on the shelf is top notch. I'm in the market for a fast 35mm lens and I'm loathe to pull the trigger on the Sigma because of this.

Now that real world samples are making their way into buyers hands, more and more reports are coming out about continued QC issues at Sigma with AF reliability. Seems the same thing that pops up so often in the 50 1.4 is happening in the 35 1.4 as well. Makes one wonder if Sigma is pre-screening all the lenses they send out for review to make sure they're all perfect.

And please note, I'm not Sigma bashing, I have the 50 1.4 and have nothing against them. I just don't like that they're able to produce a wonderful lens but won't put the QC protocols into place that will assure that almost every one on the shelf is top notch. I'm in the market for a fast 35mm lens and I'm loathe to pull the trigger on the Sigma because of this.

Can you be more specific? I'm yet to see a report of problems with this lens. And even though it would be nice to have almost every lens on the shelf be perfect, I don't think very many of us would be willing to pay the price of maintaining a standard that almost no manufacturer meets. Also, some merchandise is damaged in transit, which is often (not always) beyond the control of the manufacturer.

Now, I agree that QC is a problem if 20-30% of a product has problem. Hell, even 10-20% may be too high.

So, what percentage of Sigma 35mm 1.4 lenses do you believe are defective?

Can you be more specific? I'm yet to see a report of problems with this lens. And even though it would be nice to have almost every lens on the shelf be perfect, I don't think very many of us would be willing to pay the price of maintaining a standard that almost no manufacturer meets. Also, some merchandise is damaged in transit, which is often (not always) beyond the control of the manufacturer.

Now, I agree that QC is a problem if 20-30% of a product has problem. Hell, even 10-20% may be too high.

So, what percentage of Sigma 35mm 1.4 lenses do you believe are defective?

All anecdotal evidence of course! I don't have the means or the will to do it more scientifically. But I have seen some comments popping up in FM forums and elsewhere about focus issues that seem identical to what I get out of my Sigma 50 1.4. As the old saying goes, 'Once bitten, twice shy', so personally when I see anyone mention it at all it gives me serious pause.

I hope this problem is indeed intermittent. I'd love to see Sigma become a legitimate competitor to Canikon in lens production if for no other reason that I can't afford to spend $2000/lens (anymore).

I've had both good and bad experience with Sigma lenses. So far, the 35mm is a keeper. I hope that I'm not just one of the fortunate few.

rpiotr01 wrote:

gatorowl wrote:

Can you be more specific? I'm yet to see a report of problems with this lens. And even though it would be nice to have almost every lens on the shelf be perfect, I don't think very many of us would be willing to pay the price of maintaining a standard that almost no manufacturer meets. Also, some merchandise is damaged in transit, which is often (not always) beyond the control of the manufacturer.

Now, I agree that QC is a problem if 20-30% of a product has problem. Hell, even 10-20% may be too high.

So, what percentage of Sigma 35mm 1.4 lenses do you believe are defective?

All anecdotal evidence of course! I don't have the means or the will to do it more scientifically. But I have seen some comments popping up in FM forums and elsewhere about focus issues that seem identical to what I get out of my Sigma 50 1.4. As the old saying goes, 'Once bitten, twice shy', so personally when I see anyone mention it at all it gives me serious pause.

When I was deciding between the sigma and the 35L, the price was a non issue for me, but sharpness and contrast wide open were most important. The sigma did not disappoint. The shop let me test one at the store to make sure there were no focus issues before I bought mine. Very pleased with the lens. I actually prefer it over my 24-70 II as my everyday lens.

Can you be more specific? I'm yet to see a report of problems with this lens.

Now, I agree that QC is a problem if 20-30% of a product has problem. Hell, even 10-20% may be too high.

So, what percentage of Sigma 35mm 1.4 lenses do you believe are defective?

I went through 4 Sigma 35mm lenses before I decided to get the 35L. Each had their own unique focusing issues, I really wanted it to work out but I cannot have a lens that misses focus in artificial lighting or at different distances. If I was not paid to shoot, I would have kept the Sigma that was almost reliable. So far, I love the 35L, to me having total confidence in my gear is bliss. I would rather have a star that performs in the clutch than a superstar that chokes when it really matters.

It is a shame because in ideal light lighting conditions (outdoors at medium distances) the Sigma is spectacular, but this is where I would least use it.

I saw a demo at petapixel showing the Sigma USB software at work and they now have the option of AFMA at different distances. However, I do not know if it will solve the artificial light problem and one of the Sigmas I bought required different AFMA for corner sensors than center sensor. From what I can see the software will not solve this issue.

I bought the Canon L before the Sigma,became available. I really was looking for a fast 50mm for my 5D2 but since the only decent 50mm for Canon seems to be the 50L, which I felt is too expensive and slow AF I went for the 35L for my 7D and 60D.

Looking at the comparison reviews on the net like this one it would seem the Sigma is superior in sharpness, price and warranty. However calculating in the dock for Sigma and it's lower resale value compared to a Canon L lens I think the price difference is not that great. Since I rely alot on AF and want the fastest possible along with most accurate I would say the Canon wins hands down here. Especially if new future bodies come along and Sigma has a more difficult time reverse engineering the interface. This is evident in the difficulties software developers are having with the 5D3.

I have lately been comparing the color and bokeh from the 35L on my 5D2 with my RX1 and believe the RX1 is much much sharper and has better color, but the 35L wins in terms of bokeh and AF speed of course.

It has been interesting to note that rumours of a 35L mkII are floating around, perhaps due to the threat the Sigma is to sales of the 35L. I certainly think Canon could produce a sharper 35 1.2/1.4 with less CA but then at what price will that be? If I were shopping around today I would wait a half year or so to see if a new version is in the works.

As others have mentioned Sigma quality has had a history of poor design (glued instead of screwed components) as well as subrate QC. The 10 year warranty is not great if the lens is going to need continual trips to the repair shop. I have more faith in the L lenses I own to last a lifetime with proper care, plus they will always have a better resale value over Sigma.

-- hide signature --

There is a crack in everything That's how the light gets in. - Leonard Cohen